Political Philosophy: An arguement in support of Gay rights

[ssa_fellow]

You inferred my “case”. That is dangerous, philosophically speaking. You shouold have taken the options as outlined above.
Now now…I never stated my “case”. I posed a question and you nown admit you inferred my “case”. You first of all tried to sidestep the assertion of there being an assumption in your premise and you did so sarcastically and dismissively. With no icon!!

You did the same to ssfellow at the bottom of post #111.

Unless you learn to ask questions, charitably, you will learn nothing. You assume you know where the thought trains of others will/might lead. The problem is still yours until you admit that there is an undealt with assumption in your original premise and have the intellectual courage to take one of the three options given above.

Putting me onto ignore will just leave your error for all others to see.

Your choice.

Thank you, I felt what happened in post #111 was a terrible way to treat a human being. And, it is certainly telling how people who believe what this Mind Over Matter guy believes treat people terribly.

This is what he said to me:
VILE STATEMENT UTTERED BY THE MOUTH of Mind Over Matter:

“If you can prove me wrong then please do so, or kindly admit that you are wrong, or simply agree to disagree. In fact it seems like you have not really been following what has been said on this thread at all.”

That was your response to my 3 posts?

Gee, thanks for having a discussion. I raised some serious criticism in what his arguments were. I poked some serious holes in his theory. And I made a serious effort to get him to see that objective morality exists.

What did he do? Act in a way that only proves the necessity for objective morality. Without it we’d all treat each other like Mind Over Matter. And, that’s no way to treat people AT ALL :takethat:

Edit: I made the word “Charitably” size 7, to show Mind Over Matter a virtue that he needs to learn: speaking charitably. Whatever, I guess they don’t call it “Christian charity” for nothing… I mean, it doesn’t look like they’ll be calling it “Atheist charity” anytime soon…

 

[MindOverMatter2]

Well, even if the state is Godless and only uses utilitarianism or pragmatism to CAST ITS JUDGEMENTS… which again I say proves you are a big government liberal.

I never said that I supported the split between church and state. I am merely showing the logical consequences of it. And so what if I am a big government liberal?

Even if that’s how your definition of state works, why do you make the leap to say “You have to support the gay agenda despite contrary moral beliefs”.

That sounds like textbook definition fascism.

The state views things one way. People may view things another way. Those people have no choice but to support the state. They must support the judgement of the state on gay rights. They cannot use their own moral beliefs, because they arrived at those beliefs in a different way than the state.

How is that not fascism?

Because morals have nothing to do with pragmatism, and forcing your “beliefs”, religious or otherwise, on others is what we usually describe as fascism. The state isn’t taking away your beliefs, but rather they are providing the best pragmatic conditions for a pluralistic society of differing beliefs systems. Unless you have facts which certainly prove that your moral beliefs are the objective standard by which laws should be made, then you have no factual grounds for superseding the moral beliefs of others in respect of law making. The fascist is generally understood to be somebody who has a set of beliefs and thinks they have a right to supersede everybody else’s beliefs and dictate laws according to those beliefs without rational justification. Pragmatism, in the context of law making, to an extent solves this issue by respecting everybody’s beliefs and doing only that which is generally beneficial for the whole of society instead of what is just beneficial to a particular religion or belief system. Relative to the survival of society as a whole, It is practically speaking the lesser of two evils, by evil I mean only that pragmatism provides the least amount of possible suffering, and the most power distributed. Unless you can prove that your beliefs are true, you cannot really claim to be a victim of fascism on pragmatic grounds. In fact the kind of state that I am talking about is actually preserving your right to believe in God and have your own moral beliefs. They have only rejected your right to make them state laws without pragmatic justification. If you can show that your beliefs have genuine pragmatic benefits which does not undermine the beliefs of others, then that is a different story.

 

[John21652]

Thank you, I felt what happened in post #111 was a terrible way to treat a human being.
…

What did he do? Act in a way that only proves the necessity for objective morality. Without it we’d all treat each other like Mind Over Matter. And, that’s no way to treat people AT ALL :takethat:

Edit: I made the word “Charitably” size 7, to show Mind Over Matter a virtue that he needs to learn: speaking charitably. Whatever, I guess they don’t call it “Christian charity” for nothing… I mean, it doesn’t look like they’ll be calling it “Atheist charity” anytime soon…

No worries.

You did indeed plug holes in his argument and, as usual, he side stepped answering them by using lots of waffle and bluster.

I accused him of being hubristic. Now take a look at how he answered Winter Light in post #118!!
I’ll repeat it here, so we can all be on the same page -

In my eyes, this is just a veiled attempt to morally belittle me because you feel threatened by the truth of my argument. I don’t think you really give a dame about my soul.

I know you are having difficulty because you have found your true nemesis, but I can’t help the fact that I have an amazing brain. You are going to have to speak to God about that.

“If your brother sins against you, go and tell him his fault, between you and him alone. If he listens to you, you have gained your brother”.

When I read WinterLight’s post, I thought it a very mild reminder to be charitable and for the poster in question to stop and have a little think. And look at how he responded!!

Hubris writ large!!

Really, really amazing brains have an easy Charity, which WinterLight alluded to and which you emboldened in fine style, and in those amazing brains it is most manifest, coupled with a humble willingness to question one’s own thinking.

Alas…

The result is, his original flawed premise is sill there for all to see, shining brightly in all its irreverant and illogical glory!!

 

[tonyrey]

The topic** is** an argument in support of Gay rights…

1. A state that is not compelled by divine law, can only make judgments based upon pragmatic and utilitarian values.

The state also has to take into account the values of minorities.

1. While it is true that in the eyes of Christianity homosexual behavior does not fulfill the moral virtue of a human being teleologically speaking, it is not evident on pragmatic or utilitarian grounds that gay marriage or the adoption of children by gay couples is immoral.

Legal principles are based on moral principles.

The state cannot recognize moral values that transcend pragmatic or utilitarian considerations.

The state is not entitled to ignore the moral values implied in the UDHR.

1. Given premise 1 and 2, Moral rights is not the same thing as Legal rights

That is true but legal rights presuppose moral rights.

1. Therefore the state is legally justified in supporting gay marriage and the adoption of children by gay couples because…

1. Any possible moral errors in respect of divinity are beyond the knowledge of the state, and thus the state is invincibly ignorant to any divine testimony or authority.

The state is composed of individuals whose moral views should not be ignored or rejected.

1. Thus a state is necessarily pluralistic since it cannot oppose anything on the basis of religion or belief.

In a democratic state religious beliefs and values should be respected.

Conclusion: Therefore if you support the split between church and state, you have to support gay rights despite any moral beliefs to the contrary.

You do not have to **support **gay rights but you have a moral obligation to **respect **them even though you are convinced they do not correspond to reality!

 

[sinnseanair]

First, Logic: our Rule of law and laws are all based on the original 10 Commandments.

Second, All holy books of the known world state, in part, that homosexuality is an abomination against humanity.

Third, is the warping of the word GAY. It means to be happy and with frolic.

Fourth, because a human had sex with a monkey, against God’s teachings, we now have AIDS which is slowly wiping out the homosexual population while polluting God’s people. Hence, the word GAY has come to mean “Got Aids Yet”.

Five, there have been, throughtout history, homosexual activities, both condoned and not. But, historically and logically, it does not allow it to come within God’s teachings. “Thou shall not covet” includes both sexes.

Six, We are not a secular nation. We have Freedom OF Religion, Not Freedom FROM Religion. Hopefully, we will not become another Sodom or Gomorrah, for that is where we are headed.

Seven, when homosexuals find a religion that includes them, such as was practiced on the ancient Isle of Lesbos, let it be thus. Homosexuals are akin to mules. Physically unable and and mental unwilling to produce offspring while justifying the need for acceptance and placing the love and need of sex above the teachings of God.

Eight, Our Church is undergoing a very dark time. We have been infiltrated by homosexuals using the robes of piety as a guise for their depraved thoughts and ways. It is time for we Catholics to clean our Church as Our Lord cleaned the temple of depraved activities. There may be a place for homosexuals to practice their depraved activities, but our church is most certainly not that place.

 

[WinterLight]

In my eyes, this is just a veiled attempt to morally belittle me because you feel threatened by the truth of my argument. I don’t think you really give a dame about my soul.

I know you are having difficulty because you have found your true nemesis, but I can’t help the fact that I have an amazing brain. You are going to have to speak to God about that.

I have no objection to vigorous, even aggressive, debate. By contrast, you appear adverse to it: indeed, you chose to dismiss my critique of your argument, in which I highlighted errors in both logic and substance. You’ve dismissed others’ responses as well. This, I suppose, we could take if you were at least kind about it (although I’m not sure how one could simultaneously be dismissive and kind); you, however, are just plain rude. Finally, how can you claim to have an “amazing brain” when you commit mistakes that even a mediocre undergrad would recognize as such?

 

[sw85]

MoM2,

Would it be fair to say that you advanced the argument to demonstrate that separation of church and state leads inevitably to the adoption of utilitarian ethics on a social scale and thus to gay marriage?

Would it also be fair to say that you regard this situation as undesirable and therefore a good reason why “separation of church and state” is a grave moral error?

If the answer to both of these yes, I don’t see what anyone is criticizing you over. You cannot just intentionally marginalize the Church and then get surprised that its ethical system gets marginalized with it.

 

[WinterLight]

Would it be fair to say that you advanced the argument to demonstrate that separation of church and state leads inevitably to the adoption of utilitarian ethics on a social scale and thus to gay marriage?

I pointed this out earlier. The trouble, however, is not whether we agree with the conclusion but rather that his argument is neither sound nor even valid.

 

[MindOverMatter2]

The topic** is** an argument in support of Gay rights…

The state also has to take into account the values of minorities.

This is true in the sense that no religion should be forced to act against its own principles; for example it would be wrong for the government to force the church to open the doors to gay marriage.

Legal principles are based on moral principles.

The state is not entitled to ignore the moral values implied in the UDHR.

Firstly let me be clear that I am only trying to demonstrate what a split between church and state logically implies. I am not saying that any state actually fulfils the implications of that split in the real world. As for the UDHR, that depends on whether or not everything that is written in UDHR is stated for the benefit of all society; excluding no belief system and never asserting one theological authority for the exclusion of an other. If the UDHR biasly asserts that Christian law on homosexual marriage is legally binding in its authority; then the split doesn’t really exist.

That is true but legal rights presuppose moral rights.

I don’t deny that legal rights were at some time rooted in the Christian sense of morality; but given the split, the law can no-longer be dictated according to Christian theology. It is an inevitable reality that the split means a departure from theologically defined laws. The laws of today are increasingly pragmatic and utilitarian, and not by accident; it is simply an inevitable consequence of the split. It shouldn’t be a surprise. It surprises me that some Christians find it so surprising, and are now moaning because the split and their so called “democracy” isn’t so “beneficial” as they once thought. Talk about hoodwinked!!!

It surprises me that Christians think that America’s cultural references to Christianity means that the state should bend to there will alone.
tonyrey;8758911:
The state is composed of individuals whose moral views should not be ignored or rejected.

That goes for everyone’s moral views; not just “Christians”. If there is truly a split the government has no rational or practical grounds for choosing one over the other simply on the basis of “Christian Dogma”. We are not in a theocracy. Therefore only those moral views which have a pragmatic application for society as a “whole” can be considered legally relevant. Its no wonder then that there is such a thing as legal “abortion”, or legal gay marriage, or legal adoption by gay couples.
In a democratic state religious beliefs and values should be respected. You do not have to **support **gay rights but you have a moral obligation to **respect **them even though you are convinced they do not correspond to reality!

By support, I do not mean moral support. I can agree that something ought to be legal according to legal definitions; but that does not mean I morally agree with it. A thing might have no moral grounds in terms of my belief, but legally speaking I can see that the state has no valid basis for asserting one religious authority over another. I mean only that if you support the split between church and state, you are by definition supporting the legal consequences of that fact.

 

[MindOverMatter2]

MoM2,

Would it be fair to say that you advanced the argument to demonstrate that separation of church and state leads inevitably to the adoption of utilitarian ethics on a social scale and thus to gay marriage?

Would it also be fair to say that you regard this situation as undesirable and therefore a good reason why “separation of church and state” is a grave moral error?

If the answer to both of these yes, I don’t see what anyone is criticizing you over. You cannot just intentionally marginalize the Church and then get surprised that its ethical system gets marginalized with it.

Be thankful that you are one of a few that have eyes to see.

As for whether or not I support the split or not; all I can say is that I am edging towards the condemnation of the split. I like the idea of a theocracy. I feel morally compelled against the split because I believe that Catholic morality is true morality, and if we were in a Catholic state things like state sponsored abortion just wouldn’t exist. But at the same time I don’t want to force my beliefs on other people, and given a pluralistic society I am still wondering if a catholic state is practical or even possible. Please don’t be angry with me for being undecided on the matter. I am just being honest.

 

[MindOverMatter2]

I have no objection to vigorous, even aggressive, debate. By contrast, you appear adverse to it: indeed, you chose to dismiss my critique of your argument, in which I highlighted errors in both logic and substance. You’ve dismissed others’ responses as well. This, I suppose, we could take if you were at least kind about it (although I’m not sure how one could simultaneously be dismissive and kind); you, however, are just plain rude. Finally, how can you claim to have an “amazing brain” when you commit mistakes that even a mediocre undergrad would recognize as such?

This is the only response you deserve…jfhoiedshfodwhfahf’ponf’oiweh’phg’ewhgp#ewogoewjg#!!!

 

[sw85]

I pointed this out earlier. The trouble, however, is not whether we agree with the conclusion but rather that his argument is neither sound nor even valid.

I think you are misapprehending the nature of the argument, though.

First, it is clear to me at least that utilitarianism IS an ethical system, simply not a very good one. Thus utilitarian laws are in fact a codificiation of morality. This addresses your first objection.

You say it is far from clear that utilitarianism necessarily leads to gay “marriage” (to spare my poor fingers, let the sarcastic quotation marks henceforward be simply implied). This I agree with ONLY in the very loose sense that it is possible to imagine a utilitarian argument against gay marriage. In practice, however, utilitarianism always and everywhere leads to gay marriage – as witnessed by the fact that everywhere utilitarianism has supplanted natural law ethics, gay marriage movements emerge and are increasingly successful.

So while it is perhaps true that the argument falls short because there is no NECESSARY connection between separation of church and state policies on the one hand and gay marriage on the other, there is certainly a very real and very strong CORRELATIONAL connection.

To put it simply your argument seems to be that “separation of church and state” is not SUFFICIENT to enact gay marriage. But it certainly appears to be a NECESSARY precondition to it.

Or to put it even more simply, your argument seems to be that the arguments leading to gay marriage given a church/state separated society are incoherent. I agree with this. However, that only proves that utilitarianism/gay marriage is incoherent – not that it isn’t real or that people don’t buy into the (bad) logic. It is real, and people do buy into it, and their belief in utilitarianism is why, and this belief arises from the belief that natural law ethics are somehow unsuited for the organization of public life and therefore must be segregated from it.

Hope this clarifies my thinking (and, evidently, MoM2’s).

 

[WinterLight]

To put it simply your argument seems to be that “separation of church and state” is not SUFFICIENT to enact gay marriage. But it certainly appears to be a NECESSARY precondition to it.

His conclusion, however, is that separation of church and state is sufficient to enact gay marriage.

Some defiinitions from classical logic.

“P is a sufficient condition for Q” is equivalent to “If P, then Q”.

“P is a necessary condition for Q” is equivalent to “If Q, then P”.

An argument is a finite sequence of premises and a conclusion.

An argument is valid if and only if the conclusion is true whenever the all the premises are true.

An argument is sound if and only if it is valid and the premises are true.

It is doubtful that the argument is valid; since there are serious objections to the premises, it cannot be sound even if it were valid. There is not the slightest reference to logical rules of inference.

Lesson? People should not pretend to make logical arguments when it is clear that they haven’t learned even the most basic principles of logic.

 

[Dakota_Roberts]

First, Logic: our Rule of law and laws are all based on the original 10 Commandments.

Second, All holy books of the known world state, in part, that homosexuality is an abomination against humanity.

Third, is the warping of the word GAY. It means to be happy and with frolic.

Fourth, because a human had sex with a monkey, against God’s teachings, we now have AIDS which is slowly wiping out the homosexual population while polluting God’s people. Hence, the word GAY has come to mean “Got Aids Yet”.

Five, there have been, throughtout history, homosexual activities, both condoned and not. But, historically and logically, it does not allow it to come within God’s teachings. “Thou shall not covet” includes both sexes.

Six, We are not a secular nation. We have Freedom OF Religion, Not Freedom FROM Religion. Hopefully, we will not become another Sodom or Gomorrah, for that is where we are headed.

Seven, when homosexuals find a religion that includes them, such as was practiced on the ancient Isle of Lesbos, let it be thus. Homosexuals are akin to mules. Physically unable and and mental unwilling to produce offspring while justifying the need for acceptance and placing the love and need of sex above the teachings of God.

Eight, Our Church is undergoing a very dark time. We have been infiltrated by homosexuals using the robes of piety as a guise for their depraved thoughts and ways. It is time for we Catholics to clean our Church as Our Lord cleaned the temple of depraved activities. There may be a place for homosexuals to practice their depraved activities, but our church is most certainly not that place.

Does anyone else find this a little… over the top?

 

[sw85]

His conclusion, however, is that separation of church and state is sufficient to enact gay marriage.

Some defiinitions from classical logic.

“P is a sufficient condition for Q” is equivalent to “If P, then Q”.

“P is a necessary condition for Q” is equivalent to “If Q, then P”.

An argument is a finite sequence of premises and a conclusion.

An argument is valid if and only if the conclusion is true whenever the all the premises are true.

An argument is sound if and only if it is valid and the premises are true.

It is doubtful that the argument is valid; since there are serious objections to the premises, it cannot be sound even if it were valid. There is not the slightest reference to logical rules of inference.

Lesson? People should not pretend to make logical arguments when it is clear that they haven’t learned even the most basic principles of logic.

This may all be true.

Literally all you are saying is that the correlation (r) between separation of church/state and gay “marriage” is less than 1.

It does not mean it is not, say, .99.

This is kind of what I’m getting it. It may be the case that there is no NECESSARY rational connection the two (i.e., r =/= 1). But the fact that everywhere such a connection is observed is evidence of SOMETHING.

I mean, what is the implication of your objection, even if it is absolutely true that the argument is foundationally unsound? Are you suggesting that there is no connection whatsoever between secularism and gay “marriage”? If so, that’s simply insanity and belied by all the data available to us.

Or are you suggesting that the connection between the two is simply less than r = 1? That may be true but it is deeply uninteresting and hardly even worth raising, for even if it is true that it is less than r = 1 it does not follow that it is negligible, and the data indicates that it is certainly not negligible, certainly greater than zero, and almost certainly closer to 1 than zero. In other words, you may be formally correct but nevertheless have wasted everyone’s time for several pages quibbling over semantics.

 

[mo3]

This is an argument i have made supporting the legality of gay rights.

1. A state that is not compelled by divine law, can only make judgments based upon pragmatic and utilitarian values. This premise is false. When you say “A state that is not compelled by divine law”, you assume divine law is asserted directly from the divine or God. However, that is not how divine law is transmitted. Individuals have values and they should be respected regardless of the source (even if it comes from their belief in a divine law).

” can only make judgments based upon pragmatic and utilitarian values.

This statement does not follow from your first statement and therefore is illogical. Value judgments come from individuals not some unchanging dogmatic values from pragmatists or utilitarian’s which are subjective.

1. While it is true that in the eyes of Christianity homosexual behavior does not fulfill the moral virtue of a human being teleologically speaking, it is not evident on pragmatic or utilitarian grounds that gay marriage or the adoption of children by gay couples is immoral. The state cannot recognize moral values that transcend pragmatic or utilitarian considerations.

This premise is false. The state recognizes moral values that transcend pragmatic and utilitarian values all the time. All laws are values judgments.

1. Given premise 1 and 2, Moral rights is not the same thing as Legal rights

This is false. Since all laws are moral and value judgments, legal rights are defined by the moral beliefs of individuals who have legal rights.

Conclusion:

Therefore if you support the split between church and state, you have to support gay rights despite any moral beliefs to the contrary.

Since your first 2 premises are false, your conclusions are too.
God bless.

 

[MindOverMatter2]

I’m gay, and I would know, gay people cannot reproduce.

2 men with all the technological devices in the world could not have a child.
2 women with all the technological devices in the world could not have a child.

That is not what I meant. And you are not gay. You a man (or women?) with ssa.

Also, I only intended to mean that you have reproductive organs. A man can still have sex with a women or give sperm to a women. People do have babies for other couples. I don’t see why that can’t be true for gay people. And gay people can adopt and provide a home for unwanted children.

What you’re talking about is in fact 1 man and 1 woman reproducing together. Albeit with technological means which are sinful anyways.

I am not talking about what is sinful and not sinful. We are talking about what justifies the making of a law outside of Gods dominion and the implications.

Irregardless of that, answer my questions. If you believe in morality that only comes from the fatally flawed positions of utilitarianism and pragmatism… then are you saying you disagree with these statements:

I don’t believe that true morality originates in pragmatism or what ever ism that hasn’t got God before it as a qualifier.

1. Having gay sex is a virtuous thing to do.
2. Having an abortion is a virtuous thing to do.
3. Lying to people is a virtuous thing to do.

Virtue and morality is meaningless to me without God as a foundation.

If you disagree with those, then necessarily you are admitting that in fact these are immoral things. And, there are no moral reasons from utilitarianism to be against these things.

If you disagree with those statements you believe in objective morality.

I never said that I don’t believe in objective morality.

 

[MindOverMatter2]

This premise is false. When you say “A state that is not compelled by divine law”, you assume divine law is asserted directly from the divine or God. However, that is not how divine law is transmitted. Individuals have values and they should be respected regardless of the source (even if it comes from their belief in a divine law).

What about the values of people who accept the gay identity? Your favouring of Christian values and beliefs over those of gay people is arbitrary.

 

[MindOverMatter2]

Does anyone else find this a little… over the top?

 

[mo3]

What about the values of people who accept the gay identity? Your favouring of Christian values and beliefs over those of gay people is arbitrary.

Those with gay identity can have their values and they can vote their conscious. I do favor Christian values over gay values and they are not arbitrary. Please provide evidence that my values are arbitrary?

God bless.